Sarah’s review of The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest > Likes and Comments
223 likes · Like
I agree completely with Sarah's review of the two books.people were in need of help on the mountain and Krakauer did absolutely nothing to help them. Period.
Couldnt disagree more with this review if i tried. I just finished reading into thin air, and by no means does Krakauer paint a bad picture of anyone, at least, i wasnt left with that impression of anyone, not even Burkaeev.
Sorry, Boukreev, hard to type from a mobile!
I have read both books as well and agree 100% with Sarah's review...it is clearly the more accurate account of those tragic events and I'm just sorry that I wasted my money on 'Into Thin Air'. I won't be reading anyone of JK's books, that is for sure.
I just finished Into thin air and I really didn't see JK blaming Boukreev or anyone for that matter. I haven't read The Climb so I am not going to comment on anything else about Boukreev
To Glen Moreland, Your comment seemed very harsh. What did you expect Krakauer to do exactly? You say he did nothing to help them the victims, but he himself was a novice in that altitude. He himself would be a liability to the guides left. But your period is so final, it makes me curious to know what actions you think could have been taken by JK.
I think what we all forget to take into account is that these are biographies written after the fact by people oxygen deprived that everyone has their own version of the story and the truth is somewhere in between and it was a tragedy but lets not make it into a blame game that always follows a tragedy.
Sarah, I liked your review so much. Originally I was not going to read anymore about the 1996 tragedy, but now I have to read this one.
I think that it's hard for anyone to write about someone that they can't get into the head of.
Anatoli has been considered as one of the best alpinist climbers in the world and that's something no one can doubt, even Jon Krakauer (as he has repeated many times in "Into thin air"). However, this doesn't mean that Boukreev didn't commit mistakes during the expedition the 10th May 1996:
1.- First of all, it's scientifically proven that being at more than 8.000 m. without oxygen weakens the body and mind incredibly fast, added to prevents to maintain the body height. If one is working as a guide and their main mission is to look after the clients, the fact of not using additional oxygen is clearly out of debate.
2.- Due to how busy the day was, infrastrucure errors and many other unfortunate circumstances, non-professional climbers took momentous decisions. Boukreev, as everyone knows, didn't wait for their clients to descend (because of the lack of additional oxygen or the lack of an initial plan, who knows). If he had waited for the rest of the clients, he would have had the chance to solve some problems thanks to his previous experience. Owing to he was not there when problems occurred, non-professional climbers had to take decisions instead of him.
"Not only was Anatoli Boukreev unjustly accused of wrongdoing, he was shockingly unheralded for his heroic efforts immediately following the disaster".
If Boukreev was willing to rescue Charlotte Fox, Tim Madsen and Sandy Pittman while the others were in their tents it's because he arrived to the IV camp long time before the others (when, I repeat, he should had been looking after the clients during the descent) so he didn't suffer the storm and had enough time to rest and get warm. The fact that he rescued three people about to die in the middle if the storm, is undeniably heroic and admirable. Nobody denies it, not even Jon Krakauer, as he mentions and relates in detail what happened.
"Despite Krakauer’s efforts to convince readers otherwise, Anatoli Boukreev remains one of the most respected climbers in mountaineering history".
If you have read "Into thin air" maybe you should reread it again. Jon's sole purpose is to relate what happened that day since an objective point of view, which also means to point out everyone's errors; not only Boukreev's but also Rob Hall's, Scott Fischer's, their own and many others.
Unfortunately, people die on mountain. This is something no one can avoid. The 10th May tragedy is a result of human errors and the natural course of the nature. Even if Scott or Rob had planned everything with detail (however, apparently there was no initial plan), none of them could have avoid the storm. And due to this risk factor, mountaineering is so attractive.
In my personal opinion, Boukreev just wanted to clean up his reputation after the tragedy. He works as a high mountain professional guide and it implies the client has to have complete confidence on their guides. If Jon Krakauer's report shows an erroneous action from Boukreev, his reputation would plummet which means job loss and therefore, loss of income.
Making mistakes is a human natural condition and accept them shows a degree of considerable maturity. Jon Krakauer accepted his owns as he mentions in "Into thin air"; the fact of confusing Andy Harris with Martin Adams or not insisting too much with Beck Weathers to carry him mountain down, among others. However, owing to Jon is journalist and his job doesn't depend on looking after someone's life, accepting his errors can be easier for him in comparison with Anatoli, for whom the reputation is a more than important part of his job.
Reading "Into thin air", I haven't doubt in any moment about Anatoli's physical capacity or about his skills as a guide, indeed, the opposite. Jon Krakauer is just describing what happened on 10th May, with everything that entails, and not discreting Anatoli Boukreev in any moment.
Exactly. And it's DeWalt who has refused to acknowledge any errors in his book. Boukreev died in 1997; it's DeWalt who keeps trying to protect his own reputation since he didn't do the research he should have done before publishing Everest.
Like David Tenemaza Kramaley, I just finished reading INTO THIN AIR, and Krakauer didn't denigrate anyone, least of all Boukreev. In fact, he not only seemed in awe of Boukreev's skills as a climber, but also his efforts saving lives.
Elena wrote: "Anatoli has been considered as one of the best alpinist climbers in the world and that's something no one can doubt, even Jon Krakauer (as he has repeated many times in "Into thin air"). However, t..."
1. The 02 debate is a fair bit more complex then that due to the logistical constraints imposed by the use of 02 and how the climber performs when running out of 02. A thoroughly acclimatized climber like Boukreev in '96 can perform as well as one working with 02 as evidenced by his speed in climbing and work fixing rope. This does not make him immune to the slow erosion of warmth and strength but reduces the factors to just that, without added constraint of having to worry about how many hours of 02 are on tap and the debilitating effects of suddenly losing acclimatization.
2. The major mistakes in '96 that could have saved lives if they were made differently were made on ascent, not on the descent. Delays in fixing rope, delays around waiting for Robb's slower climbers and delaying the turnaround time all pushed the time of descent later and ultimately into the danger zone. The only major delays on descent were the time spent on the peak and the aid given to Pittman and Namba, both of which were attended to by Beidleman, among others.
The crux of both the 02 and rapid descent issue though is where do you want guides when you've got a bunch of clients descending Everest late and likely to run out of 02. Given there were 5 guides already present up the mountain a rapid descent to fetch 02 and tea seems pretty sensible.
Finally if all you've read is Into Thin Air then then you've yet to see everything Krakauer had to say or seen the focus that Krakauer puts on Boukreev's actions in the article that preceded the book. Both these books offer perspectives but where Krakauer tends to make strong assumptions about the motivations and credibility of people whom he had little contact with Boukreev & DeWalt on the other hand outline the considerable uncertainty around Robb Hall's motivations and make little further comment about the actions and motivations of the other team on the mountain. In this Boukreev manages to be more objective as a journalist as well as being the stronger climber.
Disagree. Krakauer did absolutely discuss the question of whether boukreev should have used oxygen and heading down without any of his clients, but he gave reasoning and both sides for the second and didn't say it was the wrong choice. For the former it would have been nice to have boukreevs reasoning on why not the oxygen but Krakauer voiced he didn't understand the choice and shared the discussion by expects in the industry at the time. Not his opinion. Having reas into thin air my take on the writing was that Krakauer was balanced on everyone (least so sandy pitman imo) and described how amazing boukreev was in his rescues, and his determination and ability being the highest of all people that day. He talks a lot about how heroic he was when it gets to that point in the timeline, its just the questions are much earlier so the readers sit with them for some time. That's up to the readers whether they get set in those doubts or continue to balance evenly with the information later on. Krakauer acknowledges actively that boukreev was pretty much the only person capable of the rescue attempts and coordinating later precisely because he went down and realised prioritising his health was the best way he could help others. A fact that was contrasted with Fisher and Scott (and I can't recall the 3rd) that had they prioritised their health to be able to support more effectively that would have left to fewer deaths. Both themselves and others. There is of course the question of who might boukreev have been able to prevent getting into such dire positions if he had oxygen and had been able to wait to get his clients down with him. But we cant know that answer and that is pretty fairly out by Krakauer. If anything I think Fisher is blamed more and spoken about more negatively. He doesn't give the same positive focus and respect he did to hall and was given more of the blame for events. Sandy pitman I felt the most sorry for though as she was inferred to be a total liability that shouldn't have been on the mountain and compromised the support the guides were able to give others due to her preferential treatment. She was presented as a burden and selfish. The nice comments about her positivity and acknowledging it wasn't her choice to be towed up the mountain and that her ability level was well established beforehand so Fisher knew what the deal was there. But even with the tow not being her choice he throws in skepticism and is very brief on any positive or defensive remarks vs the negative inferences. If that's accurate and representative fine, but I just felt sorry for her given the afterword about how much she struggled with the mass blame and hate she was receiving in response to deal with on top her the intense trauma of the event. Theres much more argument she was denigrated and harshly treated than boukreev in my opinion. She wasn't in a position of responsibility, Fisher made the choice to take her knowing her skill level and put that on the guides knowing the impact on the entire expedition and there isn't a direct link to her actions and any death, but rather the acknowledgement that situation added more difficulty and was one piece in a domino chain, which may or may not have impacted the outcome.
I know there are conflicting accounts but that's a different point to the accusation that Krakauer was defamatory and blamed boukreev or that he in anyway suggested he was superior in this situation. Krakauer was harshest in his own perceived failures and his mistakes. Especially given he didn't sign up to support anyone else and was a novice and tried to help and take on more responsibility than he signed up for when possible. Only agreed to leave others when a guide was nearby to support, even tho wasn't sure it was within his capabilities. No he didn't do rescues afterwards but its very clear that he beats himself up, despite the fact he was barely functioning himself, not experienced or trained and trying to make decisions under massive exhaustion and hypoxia, including hallucinations. Nobody can imagine what that's like unless they experience it so I dont think any of us are in a position to judge. Also very important to note that pushing beyond your capabilities, even to try rescue and aid makes you a liability and can even put others at risk. Which was pretty evident with hall. As a super experienced guide with responsibility to all his team, clients and guides alike, he pushes beyond his capabilities, which while admirable then likely resulted in Harris's death as well as his own and put the 2 that attempted his rescue at risk as well, on top of not being successful. Admirable and sounds like a great person, but is a perfect example that if you're not looking after yourself properly, you're not effective help to others. Krakauer was clearly at his limits so if he'd pushed to do more if he could even stay conscious longer, there's a string chance he'd have made the situation worse, not better. At the end of the day nobody should participate in these activities if they aren't prepared for personal responsibility, especially if they're not a guide. That's unreasonable expectations. Among the wider community there's generally the opinion that climbing everest or similar is not somewhere the "no man left behind" motto exists and that people partaking are generally very clear they shouldn't expect to be saved by others as it often multiplies the casualties rather than reducing them and that the margin of survival at that level is too close to expect someone else to take that burden. Especially if its a result of poor preparation or bad choices and risk taking on your part. Even guides aren't expected to save those that fail since its too dangerous. Krakauer doesn't really say that but rather appears to feel responsibility for others, even tho he didn't sign up for any of it and it's not within his competency. In practise of course you help when you can but actually all if them showed more camaraderie than people in the profession or experience generally expect (other than the South African team who refused to lend a radio even). The accounts of the death from the expeditions on the North ridge display that clearly as do accounts of deaths on previous expeditions. By those in the field they weren't condemned for not even considering helping as that's the expectation and norm. This cohort, while made mistakes in states of hypoxia, exhaustion and delirium, went above and beyond expectations to save eachother. Its mad impressive how many they managed to save considering! The fact any of them survived the night exposed that high without oxygen, let alone in those conditions is difficult to comprehend given the fact most of the deaths on everest are either falls, avalanches or most commonly succumbing to the environment and situation much quicker in often better conditions. People just sit down and die within 15 minutes in non exceptional circumstances within the time guidelines all the time. And typically when people sit down, they're left and not expected to make it. I actually read through the full list of deaths on everest and causes a couple weeks ago out of interest. After reading that this is more shocking it wasn't far worse given where things got to!
Off topic but the portrayal of krakauer and allegations of defamation are pretty unfair and there's a lot of people making comments and statements that just aren't true. Like claiming Krakauer made no acknowledgement let alone praise of boukreevs heroism and respect of his skills and rescue efforts, when thats widely described in the book, just nearer the end since its later on in the timeline. It's arguably pretty hypocritical alleging defamation and ignoring all the information and comments made, condemning Krakauer on that basis and for not doing enough to save others. Ironically doing exactly what alleging and accusing of.
The survivor with probably the fullest picture of what happened, Neal Biedelman, is unfortunately about the only guy there who hasn't written a book. A weakness of the climb is it's pretty reactive, and DeWalt never even interviewed or called Biedelman which is pretty puzzling, as the only other surviving Mountain Madness guide, a person who worked closely with Boukreev, and was present at almost all the critical moments in the disaster.
In the end, there is no doubt that Krakauer's book is the definitive and most honest and factual account of this event. He attempts to hold everyone accountable, despite how the truth might hurt. And he interviewed all of the key players multiple times. Boukreev and DeWalt failed to do the same. I feel bad for anybody duped into believing this version over Krakauer's. Zero key players in the climbing world give Bookreev/DeWalt's account any credibility.
Lol, Krakauer literally calls him a hero and DeWalt has been shredded by all the sources from the disaster as being a liar and fudger of facts primarily to make Anatoli look blameless. Not to mention he failed to interview three of the main players who could corroborate Krakauer’s account of the events, gee, I wonder why? You have no clue what you’re talking about.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
I agree completely with Sarah's review of the two books.people were in need of help on the mountain and Krakauer did absolutely nothing to help them. Period.
Couldnt disagree more with this review if i tried. I just finished reading into thin air, and by no means does Krakauer paint a bad picture of anyone, at least, i wasnt left with that impression of anyone, not even Burkaeev.
Sorry, Boukreev, hard to type from a mobile!
I have read both books as well and agree 100% with Sarah's review...it is clearly the more accurate account of those tragic events and I'm just sorry that I wasted my money on 'Into Thin Air'. I won't be reading anyone of JK's books, that is for sure.
I just finished Into thin air and I really didn't see JK blaming Boukreev or anyone for that matter. I haven't read The Climb so I am not going to comment on anything else about Boukreev To Glen Moreland, Your comment seemed very harsh. What did you expect Krakauer to do exactly? You say he did nothing to help them the victims, but he himself was a novice in that altitude. He himself would be a liability to the guides left. But your period is so final, it makes me curious to know what actions you think could have been taken by JK.
I think what we all forget to take into account is that these are biographies written after the fact by people oxygen deprived that everyone has their own version of the story and the truth is somewhere in between and it was a tragedy but lets not make it into a blame game that always follows a tragedy.
Sarah, I liked your review so much. Originally I was not going to read anymore about the 1996 tragedy, but now I have to read this one.
I think that it's hard for anyone to write about someone that they can't get into the head of.
Anatoli has been considered as one of the best alpinist climbers in the world and that's something no one can doubt, even Jon Krakauer (as he has repeated many times in "Into thin air"). However, this doesn't mean that Boukreev didn't commit mistakes during the expedition the 10th May 1996:1.- First of all, it's scientifically proven that being at more than 8.000 m. without oxygen weakens the body and mind incredibly fast, added to prevents to maintain the body height. If one is working as a guide and their main mission is to look after the clients, the fact of not using additional oxygen is clearly out of debate.
2.- Due to how busy the day was, infrastrucure errors and many other unfortunate circumstances, non-professional climbers took momentous decisions. Boukreev, as everyone knows, didn't wait for their clients to descend (because of the lack of additional oxygen or the lack of an initial plan, who knows). If he had waited for the rest of the clients, he would have had the chance to solve some problems thanks to his previous experience. Owing to he was not there when problems occurred, non-professional climbers had to take decisions instead of him.
"Not only was Anatoli Boukreev unjustly accused of wrongdoing, he was shockingly unheralded for his heroic efforts immediately following the disaster".
If Boukreev was willing to rescue Charlotte Fox, Tim Madsen and Sandy Pittman while the others were in their tents it's because he arrived to the IV camp long time before the others (when, I repeat, he should had been looking after the clients during the descent) so he didn't suffer the storm and had enough time to rest and get warm. The fact that he rescued three people about to die in the middle if the storm, is undeniably heroic and admirable. Nobody denies it, not even Jon Krakauer, as he mentions and relates in detail what happened.
"Despite Krakauer’s efforts to convince readers otherwise, Anatoli Boukreev remains one of the most respected climbers in mountaineering history".
If you have read "Into thin air" maybe you should reread it again. Jon's sole purpose is to relate what happened that day since an objective point of view, which also means to point out everyone's errors; not only Boukreev's but also Rob Hall's, Scott Fischer's, their own and many others.
Unfortunately, people die on mountain. This is something no one can avoid. The 10th May tragedy is a result of human errors and the natural course of the nature. Even if Scott or Rob had planned everything with detail (however, apparently there was no initial plan), none of them could have avoid the storm. And due to this risk factor, mountaineering is so attractive.
In my personal opinion, Boukreev just wanted to clean up his reputation after the tragedy. He works as a high mountain professional guide and it implies the client has to have complete confidence on their guides. If Jon Krakauer's report shows an erroneous action from Boukreev, his reputation would plummet which means job loss and therefore, loss of income.
Making mistakes is a human natural condition and accept them shows a degree of considerable maturity. Jon Krakauer accepted his owns as he mentions in "Into thin air"; the fact of confusing Andy Harris with Martin Adams or not insisting too much with Beck Weathers to carry him mountain down, among others. However, owing to Jon is journalist and his job doesn't depend on looking after someone's life, accepting his errors can be easier for him in comparison with Anatoli, for whom the reputation is a more than important part of his job.
Reading "Into thin air", I haven't doubt in any moment about Anatoli's physical capacity or about his skills as a guide, indeed, the opposite. Jon Krakauer is just describing what happened on 10th May, with everything that entails, and not discreting Anatoli Boukreev in any moment.
Exactly. And it's DeWalt who has refused to acknowledge any errors in his book. Boukreev died in 1997; it's DeWalt who keeps trying to protect his own reputation since he didn't do the research he should have done before publishing Everest.
Like David Tenemaza Kramaley, I just finished reading INTO THIN AIR, and Krakauer didn't denigrate anyone, least of all Boukreev. In fact, he not only seemed in awe of Boukreev's skills as a climber, but also his efforts saving lives.
Elena wrote: "Anatoli has been considered as one of the best alpinist climbers in the world and that's something no one can doubt, even Jon Krakauer (as he has repeated many times in "Into thin air"). However, t..."1. The 02 debate is a fair bit more complex then that due to the logistical constraints imposed by the use of 02 and how the climber performs when running out of 02. A thoroughly acclimatized climber like Boukreev in '96 can perform as well as one working with 02 as evidenced by his speed in climbing and work fixing rope. This does not make him immune to the slow erosion of warmth and strength but reduces the factors to just that, without added constraint of having to worry about how many hours of 02 are on tap and the debilitating effects of suddenly losing acclimatization.
2. The major mistakes in '96 that could have saved lives if they were made differently were made on ascent, not on the descent. Delays in fixing rope, delays around waiting for Robb's slower climbers and delaying the turnaround time all pushed the time of descent later and ultimately into the danger zone. The only major delays on descent were the time spent on the peak and the aid given to Pittman and Namba, both of which were attended to by Beidleman, among others.
The crux of both the 02 and rapid descent issue though is where do you want guides when you've got a bunch of clients descending Everest late and likely to run out of 02. Given there were 5 guides already present up the mountain a rapid descent to fetch 02 and tea seems pretty sensible.
Finally if all you've read is Into Thin Air then then you've yet to see everything Krakauer had to say or seen the focus that Krakauer puts on Boukreev's actions in the article that preceded the book. Both these books offer perspectives but where Krakauer tends to make strong assumptions about the motivations and credibility of people whom he had little contact with Boukreev & DeWalt on the other hand outline the considerable uncertainty around Robb Hall's motivations and make little further comment about the actions and motivations of the other team on the mountain. In this Boukreev manages to be more objective as a journalist as well as being the stronger climber.
Disagree. Krakauer did absolutely discuss the question of whether boukreev should have used oxygen and heading down without any of his clients, but he gave reasoning and both sides for the second and didn't say it was the wrong choice. For the former it would have been nice to have boukreevs reasoning on why not the oxygen but Krakauer voiced he didn't understand the choice and shared the discussion by expects in the industry at the time. Not his opinion. Having reas into thin air my take on the writing was that Krakauer was balanced on everyone (least so sandy pitman imo) and described how amazing boukreev was in his rescues, and his determination and ability being the highest of all people that day. He talks a lot about how heroic he was when it gets to that point in the timeline, its just the questions are much earlier so the readers sit with them for some time. That's up to the readers whether they get set in those doubts or continue to balance evenly with the information later on. Krakauer acknowledges actively that boukreev was pretty much the only person capable of the rescue attempts and coordinating later precisely because he went down and realised prioritising his health was the best way he could help others. A fact that was contrasted with Fisher and Scott (and I can't recall the 3rd) that had they prioritised their health to be able to support more effectively that would have left to fewer deaths. Both themselves and others. There is of course the question of who might boukreev have been able to prevent getting into such dire positions if he had oxygen and had been able to wait to get his clients down with him. But we cant know that answer and that is pretty fairly out by Krakauer. If anything I think Fisher is blamed more and spoken about more negatively. He doesn't give the same positive focus and respect he did to hall and was given more of the blame for events. Sandy pitman I felt the most sorry for though as she was inferred to be a total liability that shouldn't have been on the mountain and compromised the support the guides were able to give others due to her preferential treatment. She was presented as a burden and selfish. The nice comments about her positivity and acknowledging it wasn't her choice to be towed up the mountain and that her ability level was well established beforehand so Fisher knew what the deal was there. But even with the tow not being her choice he throws in skepticism and is very brief on any positive or defensive remarks vs the negative inferences. If that's accurate and representative fine, but I just felt sorry for her given the afterword about how much she struggled with the mass blame and hate she was receiving in response to deal with on top her the intense trauma of the event. Theres much more argument she was denigrated and harshly treated than boukreev in my opinion. She wasn't in a position of responsibility, Fisher made the choice to take her knowing her skill level and put that on the guides knowing the impact on the entire expedition and there isn't a direct link to her actions and any death, but rather the acknowledgement that situation added more difficulty and was one piece in a domino chain, which may or may not have impacted the outcome. I know there are conflicting accounts but that's a different point to the accusation that Krakauer was defamatory and blamed boukreev or that he in anyway suggested he was superior in this situation. Krakauer was harshest in his own perceived failures and his mistakes. Especially given he didn't sign up to support anyone else and was a novice and tried to help and take on more responsibility than he signed up for when possible. Only agreed to leave others when a guide was nearby to support, even tho wasn't sure it was within his capabilities. No he didn't do rescues afterwards but its very clear that he beats himself up, despite the fact he was barely functioning himself, not experienced or trained and trying to make decisions under massive exhaustion and hypoxia, including hallucinations. Nobody can imagine what that's like unless they experience it so I dont think any of us are in a position to judge. Also very important to note that pushing beyond your capabilities, even to try rescue and aid makes you a liability and can even put others at risk. Which was pretty evident with hall. As a super experienced guide with responsibility to all his team, clients and guides alike, he pushes beyond his capabilities, which while admirable then likely resulted in Harris's death as well as his own and put the 2 that attempted his rescue at risk as well, on top of not being successful. Admirable and sounds like a great person, but is a perfect example that if you're not looking after yourself properly, you're not effective help to others. Krakauer was clearly at his limits so if he'd pushed to do more if he could even stay conscious longer, there's a string chance he'd have made the situation worse, not better. At the end of the day nobody should participate in these activities if they aren't prepared for personal responsibility, especially if they're not a guide. That's unreasonable expectations. Among the wider community there's generally the opinion that climbing everest or similar is not somewhere the "no man left behind" motto exists and that people partaking are generally very clear they shouldn't expect to be saved by others as it often multiplies the casualties rather than reducing them and that the margin of survival at that level is too close to expect someone else to take that burden. Especially if its a result of poor preparation or bad choices and risk taking on your part. Even guides aren't expected to save those that fail since its too dangerous. Krakauer doesn't really say that but rather appears to feel responsibility for others, even tho he didn't sign up for any of it and it's not within his competency. In practise of course you help when you can but actually all if them showed more camaraderie than people in the profession or experience generally expect (other than the South African team who refused to lend a radio even). The accounts of the death from the expeditions on the North ridge display that clearly as do accounts of deaths on previous expeditions. By those in the field they weren't condemned for not even considering helping as that's the expectation and norm. This cohort, while made mistakes in states of hypoxia, exhaustion and delirium, went above and beyond expectations to save eachother. Its mad impressive how many they managed to save considering! The fact any of them survived the night exposed that high without oxygen, let alone in those conditions is difficult to comprehend given the fact most of the deaths on everest are either falls, avalanches or most commonly succumbing to the environment and situation much quicker in often better conditions. People just sit down and die within 15 minutes in non exceptional circumstances within the time guidelines all the time. And typically when people sit down, they're left and not expected to make it. I actually read through the full list of deaths on everest and causes a couple weeks ago out of interest. After reading that this is more shocking it wasn't far worse given where things got to!
Off topic but the portrayal of krakauer and allegations of defamation are pretty unfair and there's a lot of people making comments and statements that just aren't true. Like claiming Krakauer made no acknowledgement let alone praise of boukreevs heroism and respect of his skills and rescue efforts, when thats widely described in the book, just nearer the end since its later on in the timeline. It's arguably pretty hypocritical alleging defamation and ignoring all the information and comments made, condemning Krakauer on that basis and for not doing enough to save others. Ironically doing exactly what alleging and accusing of.
The survivor with probably the fullest picture of what happened, Neal Biedelman, is unfortunately about the only guy there who hasn't written a book. A weakness of the climb is it's pretty reactive, and DeWalt never even interviewed or called Biedelman which is pretty puzzling, as the only other surviving Mountain Madness guide, a person who worked closely with Boukreev, and was present at almost all the critical moments in the disaster.
In the end, there is no doubt that Krakauer's book is the definitive and most honest and factual account of this event. He attempts to hold everyone accountable, despite how the truth might hurt. And he interviewed all of the key players multiple times. Boukreev and DeWalt failed to do the same. I feel bad for anybody duped into believing this version over Krakauer's. Zero key players in the climbing world give Bookreev/DeWalt's account any credibility.
Lol, Krakauer literally calls him a hero and DeWalt has been shredded by all the sources from the disaster as being a liar and fudger of facts primarily to make Anatoli look blameless. Not to mention he failed to interview three of the main players who could corroborate Krakauer’s account of the events, gee, I wonder why? You have no clue what you’re talking about.
I love JK writings, but I think Thin air was written in hanger. When you are over the 8000mt you cannot expect people to save your life. Either you are fit enough for the quest and properly acclimatized. Maybe just maybe if you are not, you should be realistic and give it a miss. Anatoli Boukreev was one of the most accomplished climbers of our time.
I agree with JK that greed and bad decisions have a lot to answer for. In reality normal everyday life if we make a bad decision nothing happen, but on Everest things cannot be left to chances and EGO.